Autum Colors
AUTUMN COLORS ABLAZE »

FUN THINGS TO DO IN DETROIT »



Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 78
  1. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    Who is asking that?

    I think some people are asking:

    a) If the government prioritized investing in schools in those neighbourhoods, and in lesser measure in parks, streetscapes, transit etc. Would that be a better investment not only for existing residents, but also in attracting new ones, who would in turn, attract the supermarkets/condos etc
    Taking into consideration that you are new and just learning about life.

    Investing in schools and investment in parks,streetscapes,transit etc. are two different categories and one centers around quality of life issues designed to retain current residents that without them there would be no need for the schools.

    School boards operate totally different in funding then transit as an example.

    Outside of funding the “government “ has little say or power over school boards.

    Speaking of schools,you misspelt neighborhoods.

    You pose the question that if the benefits of Gilberttown could be extended to the other neighborhoods.

    Detroit has x amount of residents that can afford to put x amount of money in the pot,if they had the luxury of,say for instance,throwing billions into a fantasy bridge to nowhere,paid for by free money,I am sure they would improve every square inch tomorrow.

    Its like anything else,you pick a nucleus and build out from there.

    You cannot compare Detroit to any other city in the country,they were all no different then Detroit is today,they just started 20-30 years ago,if you really want to compare,although it may not seem like it,Detroit has improved faster and with more thought,outside of the unnecessary destruction of its history,then most cities in the country.
    Last edited by Richard; November-19-19 at 06:22 PM.

  2. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    For the record, the Globe and Mail is considered a Conservative, pro-business Newspaper.

    It produces Report on Business Magazine, has extensive business coverage, generally endorses Conservatives politically and never the left/socialists, and is owned by Canada's richest man.

    I'm always taken by the perception of of some conservatives that anything to the political left of fascism is 'Liberal'.
    The Globe and Mail is a more liberal national newspaper and the National Post is its more conservative opposite as a newspaper. The Globe and Mail endorsed Hilary Clinton, not Trump. For example: "Dear America: Please don't vote for Donald Trump" "https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/united-states-dont-vote-president-donald-trump/article32655412/

    You would never see something like that in the National Post. In fact, what you would find in the National Post is something like this. The Trump Administration should buy Canada for $20Trillion instead of Greenland: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/a-m...-to-buy-canada

    Just because the Globe is owned by Canada's richest man doesn't make the Globe a Conservative Newspaper. Ex-NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is also a business media giant, many times richer than Donald Trump and also filed for the 2020 Democratic Presidential primary ballot in Arkansas to run against Trump in 2020. Being a billionaire and a liberal is not mutually exclusive.

    I have found that reading the articles in the Globe is a more liberal bent newspaper. Granted the Canadian Conservative Party is a lot more liberal than it's American Republican Party counterpart, for example, the Conservatives support our universal healthcare system and other things that sound more Democratic in the US than Republican which is probably why it looks like they are supporting the Canadian Conservatives. But, the Globe being a conservative newspaper like the National Post? No, I just don't see it. Generally speaking, I consider the Globe a liberal, not conservative, newspaper and the liberal counterpart to the National Post.

  3. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Taking into consideration that you are new and just learning about life.
    I'm middle aged, have run a charity, been an executive and a board member.......not new; always learning, but never from you.

    Speaking of schools,you misspelt neighborhoods.
    Hate to break it to you, but correct spelling is neighbourhoods, with a 'u' in Canada, and in U.K, the country from which the English language originates.

    You pose the question that if the benefits of Gilberttown could be extended to the other neighborhoods.

    Detroit has x amount of residents that can afford to put x amount of money in the pot,if they had the luxury of,say for instance,throwing billions into a fantasy bridge to nowhere,paid for by free money,I am sure they would improve every square inch tomorrow.
    The taxes generated by the renewal are also paid to the State of Michigan; and the United States Government. Those entities could choose to redistribute some of the proceeds to needy areas. The burden need not fall on the City of Detroit.

    You cannot compare Detroit to any other city in the country,they were all no different then Detroit is today,they just started 20-30 years ago,if you really want to compare,although it may not seem like it,Detroit has improved faster and with more thought,outside of the unnecessary destruction of its history,then most cities in the country.
    I can and will compare Detroit with any other place I see fit; and people can judge for themselves the relevance of any comparison; though I don't recall a comparison having been made here.

  4. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davewindsor View Post
    The Globe and Mail is a more liberal national newspaper and the National Post is its more conservative opposite as a newspaper. The Globe and Mail endorsed Hilary Clinton, not Trump. For example: "Dear America: Please don't vote for Donald Trump" "https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/united-states-dont-vote-president-donald-trump/article32655412/

    You would never see something like that in the National Post. In fact, what you would find in the National Post is something like this. The Trump Administration should buy Canada for $20Trillion instead of Greenland: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/a-m...-to-buy-canada

    Just because the Globe is owned by Canada's richest man doesn't make the Globe a Conservative Newspaper. Ex-NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is also a business media giant, many times richer than Donald Trump and also filed for the 2020 Democratic Presidential primary ballot in Arkansas to run against Trump in 2020. Being a billionaire and a liberal is not mutually exclusive.

    I have found that reading the articles in the Globe is a more liberal bent newspaper. Granted the Canadian Conservative Party is a lot more liberal than it's American Republican Party counterpart, for example, the Conservatives support our universal healthcare system and other things that sound more Democratic in the US than Republican which is probably why it looks like they are supporting the Canadian Conservatives. But, the Globe being a conservative newspaper like the National Post? No, I just don't see it. Generally speaking, I consider the Globe a liberal, not conservative, newspaper and the liberal counterpart to the National Post.
    Respectfully, the Globe endorsed Brian Mulroney every time he ran, Jean Charest, and Stephen Harper every time he ran. They endorsed the Liberals only twice Chretien once and Martin once.

    That's 6-2 for the record.

    That aside, I can't accept any comparison with the National Post, whose owners are American, and who managed to get Andrew Coyne, Canada's leading intellectual conservative to resign on principle as Editor of same.

    The Post isn't a credible newspaper anymore than the New York Post is; its something you can use to line a bird cage.

    Canada's Conservatives, historically, have been mostly classical conservatives. They believe in fiscal prudence and keeping social change at a manageable pace.

    Brian Mulroney was voted 'Greenest Prime Minister of all time' for leading the charge to combat acid rain, and for creating more new national park space than any Prime Minister before or since.

    That's Conservatism.

    What Republicans are at the moment is fiscally irresponsible, socially repressed, hypocritical populists, not conservatives.

    For that reason, endorsing Hillary Clinton was not a 'liberal' move; endorsing Trump would be a clinically insane one.

  5. #30

    Default

    It just plain sucks that everything is politicized. It makes it impossible to solve some problems.

    The important thing to learn from the Gilbert story in Detroit is that the abatements are very successful. Knowing that fact now why are we not trying hard to make the same tool available to all entrepreneurs who do not have politicians, expensive lawyers and lobbyists in their back pocket?

    Not just Detroit but the entire state of Michigan needs new efficient tax vehicles to replace archaic old ones that have proven to challenge our local economy.

  6. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    Respectfully, the Globe endorsed Brian Mulroney every time he ran, Jean Charest, and Stephen Harper every time he ran. They endorsed the Liberals only twice Chretien once and Martin once.

    That's 6-2 for the record.
    They only endorsed Mulroney's views on free trade and his views on the Meech Lake Accord. It wasn't a blanket endorsement of Mulroney.


    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    That aside, I can't accept any comparison with the National Post, whose owners are American, and who managed to get Andrew Coyne, Canada's leading intellectual conservative to resign on principle as Editor of same.

    The Post isn't a credible newspaper anymore than the New York Post is; its something you can use to line a bird cage.
    You say to-mato, I say to-ma-to. You say the Post isn't credible, I say it is. It's your opinion only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    Canada's Conservatives, historically, have been mostly classical conservatives. They believe in fiscal prudence and keeping social change at a manageable pace.
    Yet, they don't believe in privatizing public healthcare, they're not legislating laws against abortion like the Republicans in the US, not legislating laws against gay marriage, etc. Not classical conservative viewpoints.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    What Republicans are at the moment is fiscally irresponsible, socially repressed, hypocritical populists, not conservatives.

    For that reason, endorsing Hillary Clinton was not a 'liberal' move; endorsing Trump would be a clinically insane one.
    Lowering corporate taxes to spur economic growth is a populist viewpoint? The Dow being at an all time high with the lowest unemployment rates in the past 40 years is a sign of clinically insane governing? The unemployment in Canada is 5.5%, while in the US it's 3.6% (Oct 2019) and those jobs were created in the private sector. Attacking those kinds of stats is hardly a conservative viewpoint.

  7. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    I'm middle aged, have run a charity, been an executive and a board member.......not new; always learning, but never from you.



    Hate to break it to you, but correct spelling is neighbourhoods, with a 'u' in Canada, and in U.K, the country from which the English language originates.



    The taxes generated by the renewal are also paid to the State of Michigan; and the United States Government. Those entities could choose to redistribute some of the proceeds to needy areas. The burden need not fall on the City of Detroit.



    I can and will compare Detroit with any other place I see fit; and people can judge for themselves the relevance of any comparison; though I don't recall a comparison having been made here.

    You might want to brush up on who controls what when it comes to incentives,grants etc and how they are applied.

    Outside of HUD it does fall on the city of Detroit because different things are paid for specific reasons and must be applied to that.Detroit is the host.

    They just cannot redistribute Willy nilly,unfortunately in the past on the federal level the funds were never applied for so detroit is playing catch up.

    U are posting on an American site where US English is the standard,where it originates is irrelevant and I did judge for myself the relevance or your comparison,just like in the last 6 threads where you seem to be stuck on the whole income inequality narrative.

    I would ask you what Canada does to eliminate income inequality and maybe we could use that for guidance but it seems like they are kinda perplexed as to how to solve it outside of building billion dollar bridges instead of peanut butter sandwiches for the schoolchildren.

    Funny how it always boils down to that pot of money and how to spend it while understanding that it does not contain unlimited funds.

    I guess the city is just like its citizens,it gets a paycheck then has to figure out how to disperse the funds in the most efficient way.

  8. #33

    Default

    Remember, there are forces in Detroit, from elites to criminal (and all types in between) — that do not want to see improvements in the city because they fear losing their way of life.

  9. #34

    Default

    ^ that plays a big part of it also.

    It is not always that simple,kinda like why out of 34 city’s in the US based on the population of Detroit,with some of them in worse shape then Detroit,does a newspaper in Canada pick Detroit to push the income inequality and billionaires are taxpayer money sponges.

    Somebody mentioned the negativity of politics in posts but the whole article is based on politics,it was politics as soon as it was written.

    99% of the Washington based writers contributions are political and bit biased.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/authors/adrian-morrow/

    I'm a Washington, D.C.-based political reporter
    I've reported from the U.S. capital since January 2017. Roughly half my work focuses on U.S.-Canada bilateral issues — particularly NAFTA and the trade war — and the other half on the rest of this extraordinary moment in the most powerful country in the world. Previously, I spent four years covering Ontario provincial politics in The Globe's Queen's Park bureau. Before that, I was a general assignment reporter on the Toronto desk

  10. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davewindsor View Post
    Yet, they don't believe in privatizing public healthcare, they're not legislating laws against abortion like the Republicans in the US, not legislating laws against gay marriage, etc. Not classical conservative viewpoints.
    Classical conservatism is not about opposing social progress or change. Its about managing the pace of change.

    Classical conservatism throughout the European tradition often championed women's rights and minority rights. Napoleon was conservative and made himself Emperor no less; yet legalized divorce, allowing women the freedom to live a marriage and opposing a then widely held religious viewpoint.

    Your confusing classical conservatism with American Evangelical nonsense, not the same thing at all.

    Lowering corporate taxes to spur economic growth is a populist viewpoint? The Dow being at an all time high with the lowest unemployment rates in the past 40 years is a sign of clinically insane governing? The unemployment in Canada is 5.5%, while in the US it's 3.6% (Oct 2019) and those jobs were created in the private sector. Attacking those kinds of stats is hardly a conservative viewpoint.
    First off, the endorsement was issued prior to any track record, economic or otherwise.

    Second, Trump has exploded the deficit to pay for that tax cut; its not sustainable. Any government of any stripe can stimulate the economy through spending, tax reduction or both. The trick is doing so in a way that produces a sustainable, long-term gain.

  11. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    You might want to brush up on who controls what when it comes to incentives,grants etc and how they are applied.

    Outside of HUD it does fall on the city of Detroit because different things are paid for specific reasons and must be applied to that.Detroit is the host.

    They just cannot redistribute Willy nilly,unfortunately in the past on the federal level the funds were never applied for so detroit is playing catch up.
    I didn't suggest 'willy nilly' redistribution.

    But Federal Funds for renewal extend far beyond HUD.

    They include funds for roads, transportation and both operating and capital grants for schools; as well as brownfield remediation amongst a host of ways.

    There are plenty of tools available without passing new regulations or laws or creating new programs.


    I would ask you what Canada does to eliminate income inequality and maybe we could use that for guidance but it seems like they are kinda perplexed as to how to solve it outside of building billion dollar bridges instead of peanut butter sandwiches for the schoolchildren.
    Beyond the source of the article Canada really has nothing to do with this thread and your ongoing obsession due to hating me for having a three digit IQ, something you never will is bothersome and old.

    Having said that, as demonstrated by links I have posted showing the GINI coefficients of various countries, Canada already does have lower levels of income inequality than the United States.

    Not low enough I should add.

    This is achieved through Universal Health Care, the National Child Benefit, Parental Leave, Lower taxes on low-income earners, higher taxes on high income earners, and top-ups to pensions for low-income seniors.

  12. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    I didn't suggest 'willy nilly' redistribution.

    But Federal Funds for renewal extend far beyond HUD.

    They include funds for roads, transportation and both operating and capital grants for schools; as well as brownfield remediation amongst a host of ways.

    There are plenty of tools available without passing new regulations or laws or creating new programs.




    Beyond the source of the article Canada really has nothing to do with this thread and your ongoing obsession due to hating me for having a three digit IQ, something you never will is bothersome and old.

    Having said that, as demonstrated by links I have posted showing the GINI coefficients of various countries, Canada already does have lower levels of income inequality than the United States.

    Not low enough I should add.

    This is achieved through Universal Health Care, the National Child Benefit, Parental Leave, Lower taxes on low-income earners, higher taxes on high income earners, and top-ups to pensions for low-income seniors.

    Federal funds are dispersed on the budget calendar year,there are special programs,hardest hit funds that was supposed to be used to stabilize neighborhoods effected by the crack epidemic.

    Hardest hit funds that were dispersed during the mortgage crises.

    But they are time sensitive and must be applied for and use for the reason that they are intended for.

    The current administration provided funding for empowerment zones but it is up to the city to choose what those zones are.

    Schools receive some fed funding under easa for low income schools for books and libraries,a majority of school funding is through property taxes collected by the city.

    High income neighborhoods pay high property value taxes so it would stand to reason that those neighborhoods would be stabilized first.

    So as of now under the current administration no we do not have universal healthcare.

    We have a national child benefit which is called EIC I think it was raised to $6557 per year recently for low income by the current president.

    Parental leave was also addressed by the current president but is sitting in congress stalled out with the distractions.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...-bill/3345?r=3

    As far as your 3 diget IQ,it may make you book smart but outside of a book you are a lost child,I do not hate you for it actually it’s more pity because I have met a lot of book smart people that would not last 5 minutes in the real world without a book telling them what to do next.

    You are correct Canada has nothing to do with the thread outside of they chose Detroit for their narrative and your views on how America should operate are based on your Canadian indoctrination and it would be hard for you to actually see anything outside of that narrow scope.

    You can feel free to pass all the new laws and regulations that have to be paid for by somebody,up there.

    The US does not need to be remade in Canada’s image,you guys are influenced by the French and you dumped Bieber on us,we have enough problems.

    According to Statistics, about 2 Canadians move to America for every 1 American that moves to Canada. Considering that there are 300 million inhabitants in the US and around 30 million in Canada, this is a very large difference.

    Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/canad...#ixzz65nO4QhZo


    There must be a reason people are fleeing utopia.

    I am not a fan of social experiments,because when they fail it is the very people that they were designed to help are the ones that end up paying the price and unable to regroup like ones with means.

    The city is doing what they can in providing the tools and opportunity for those who wish to take advantage of them,you cannot force anybody to do what they choose not to and if you tax and regulate those with means out of existence then you are stuck with what you have.

    If you create tax levels to the point where the lower income gets into the next bracket all they are doing is buying a few more trinkets and paying more in taxes to be in the same place that they climbed out of.


    Look at the population loss from the high tax states in the north to the south,they were all taxed to the point of them fleeing but yet in-spite of all of those taxes,they still have the exact same problems Detroit has,long term Detroit will have it figured out while they will be looking at Detroit for answers.

  13. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    Classical conservatism is not about opposing social progress or change. Its about managing the pace of change.
    The Webster's Dictionary defines conservatism as follows:
    Definition of conservatism

    1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
    b : the Conservative party


    2a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established

    b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)



    3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change religious conservatism cultural conservatism
    ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism )

    In 2b, it says conservatism is a philosophy calling for "individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)."





    In other words, the classical conservative is opposed to universal public health care coverage. Yet, the Conservative Party supports universal public health care. The Conservative Party is not a classical conservative. The classical conservative would not be about managing the pace of change, but about being fundamentally opposed to universal health care and privatizing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    Classical conservatism throughout the European tradition often championed women's rights and minority rights. Napoleon was conservative and made himself Emperor no less; yet legalized divorce, allowing women the freedom to live a marriage and opposing a then widely held religious viewpoint.
    Napoleon was a classical liberal (not conservative) and dictator who radically changed the legal system by bringing in the Napoleonic Code. He legalized divorce out of self-interest so he could divorce Josephine because she was barren and instead marry a noble woman who bared him two children.


    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    Your confusing classical conservatism with American Evangelical nonsense, not the same thing at all.
    No, 3 of the Webster's definition says conservatism is "the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change religious conservatism".
    It's right in Webster's definition. Classical conservatism is religious or social conservatism--it's not "evangelical nonsense".

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    First off, the endorsement was issued prior to any track record, economic or otherwise.
    Trump said he would do this before he was elected. He was elected and did it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    Second, Trump has exploded the deficit to pay for that tax cut; its not sustainable. Any government of any stripe can stimulate the economy through spending, tax reduction or both. The trick is doing so in a way that produces a sustainable, long-term gain.
    It is sustainable because he's also expanding the economy. Tariff's on Chinese goods to improve the treasury and bring back factories and jobs. Deregulation to make the US a net exporter of oil is a sustainable policy, quite unlike Canada enacting two new bills (bill c-69 pipeline killer and c-48 oil tanker ban) to slow down the production of oil and raise the voice of Western separatism. There are many others I can bring to show it's sustainable. BTW--the employment rate in the US in 2016 was 4.7%. It went down, not up, under Trump.

  14. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davewindsor View Post
    ......
    Quoting a non-classical, U.S. Dictionary is unhelpful.

    Regardless, since every single OECD country has Universal healthcare, which has either been implemented or maintained/endorsed under conservative governments your view would prohibit any country from using the term except the United States.

    The United States did not invent the term; was not the first, or second or third to deploy such term, as a result said position is not tenable.

    In respect of the United Kingdom, the NHS (Brit Medicare) the bill to create it was introduced, initially by the Conservatives in 1944 under Churchill. While Conservative Premiers in many Canadian provinces, notably Ontario introduced the Canadian equivalent.

    You can prefer whatever politics you wish, but please don't confuse those of one country, a relatively recent one at that, for an entire planet, and history.

    Though, even if you did, you'd have to reconcile the fact that the largest expansion in the history of U.S. medicare was signed into law under George Bush, Medicare Part D

  15. #40

    Default

    Dan Gilbert came to Downtown Detroit with a vision. To rebuild and restore Motor City back to glory. A real renaissance city once again. He proved it by buying up prime real estate that nobody wants, rehabbed it and lure in tech companies. With his new tower coming soon. Everyone will see that Detroit will never die.

    Some people would say " Will the last person in Detroit turn off the lights." Gilbert will say. "The Lights in Detroit will stay on."

  16. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    Quoting a non-classical, U.S. Dictionary is unhelpful.

    Regardless, since every single OECD country has Universal healthcare, which has either been implemented or maintained/endorsed under conservative governments your view would prohibit any country from using the term except the United States.

    The United States did not invent the term; was not the first, or second or third to deploy such term, as a result said position is not tenable.

    In respect of the United Kingdom, the NHS (Brit Medicare) the bill to create it was introduced, initially by the Conservatives in 1944 under Churchill. While Conservative Premiers in many Canadian provinces, notably Ontario introduced the Canadian equivalent.

    You can prefer whatever politics you wish, but please don't confuse those of one country, a relatively recent one at that, for an entire planet, and history.

    Though, even if you did, you'd have to reconcile the fact that the largest expansion in the history of U.S. medicare was signed into law under George Bush, Medicare Part D

    You just proved my point. The Canadian Conservative Party are not classical conservatives.

  17. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davewindsor View Post
    You just proved my point. The Canadian Conservative Party are not classical conservatives.
    First, I did no such thing.

    Second, I was going to let this thread lie.......

    But I just saw this and couldn't resist...........

    Your paper of choice has just published an article suggesting Greta Thunberg is a time traveler, LMAO.....

    Not conservative, just bat-sh#t nuts.....

    https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...l-conspiracies

  18. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Towne Cluber View Post
    Remember, there are forces in Detroit, from elites to criminal (and all types in between) — that do not want to see improvements in the city because they fear losing their way of life.
    I think all of the above is true. For whatever reasons, I think a lot of people like the city the way it is.

  19. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    Can I also point out that other developed countries, for the most part, don't have the same issues, in the same degree.
    Other developed countries do not have "the "third world" problems which the US has.

    What would be the result if 500,000 Winnipeg neighborhood residents were shifted to Detroit in exchange for 500,000 Detroit neighborhood residents?

  20. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermod View Post
    Other developed countries do not have "the "third world" problems which the US has.

    What would be the result if 500,000 Winnipeg neighborhood residents were shifted to Detroit in exchange for 500,000 Detroit neighborhood residents?
    Obviously, in a literal sense shifting 500,000 people between 2 mid-sized cities would be absurdly chaotic.

    But in the figurative sense, those 500,000 Detroiters would instantly have health insurance, the National Child Benefit, a higher minimum wage, better public transit, their employment rate would climb, their high school graduation rate would climb, their poverty and crime rates would decline.

    If you shifted 500,000 Winnipeg residents to Detroit they would be apoplectic at the state of things, and shut the State down with a massive general strike and block every highway and runway until the State of Michigan capitulated and fixed things.

    Of course, that's grossly over simplified.

    But its roughly true.

    You seem to assume Detroit's problems are its residents.

    I might suggest to you the problems with some residents are the result of Detroit, not the other way around.

    By which I mean, people adapt to their circumstances.

    Crappy transit, no healthcare, abandoned buildings, high crime, poor response by emergency services, mediocre public schools produce a result.

    Fix those things, get a better result.

    Have a look at Syrian refugees adapting to Canada, by and large, very well.

    People who came from a country that couldn't be much more different and from refugee camps directly.

    Yet, given proper supports, most (not all) are successfully learning English, becoming employed, with children that are thriving in good schools with access to healthcare and so on.

  21. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    First, I did no such thing.
    You're on a US website and you deny a US dictionary? Denying a dictionary definition because it's your personal opinion is just uneducated and outright foolish.

    The Webster's definition of classical conservatives is that conservative philosophy calls for "individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)"

    You wrote that UK and Canadian Conservatives Parties introduced public healthcare, which goes against the Webster's definition of conservatives.

    Therefore, the Canadian Conservative party are not classical conservatives in the Webster's definition of classical conservatives. You just proved that point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post

    Second, I was going to let this thread lie.......

    But I just saw this and couldn't resist...........

    Your paper of choice has just published an article suggesting Greta Thunberg is a time traveler, LMAO.....

    Not conservative, just bat-sh#t nuts.....

    https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...l-conspiracies
    Do you know how ridiculous you sound laughing at yourself? That article was a parody of Greta Thunberg recanting nonsense found on online websites to make readers laugh at Greta Thunberg.

    Do you really think a right wing newspaper is out to give a left wing climate activist asperbergers mental case who wants to completely shut down oil production in Canada any credibility as some kind of prophet? Use your common sense.

  22. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    Obviously, in a literal sense shifting 500,000 people between 2 mid-sized cities would be absurdly chaotic.

    But in the figurative sense, those 500,000 Detroiters would instantly have health insurance, the National Child Benefit, a higher minimum wage, better public transit, their employment rate would climb, their high school graduation rate would climb, their poverty and crime rates would decline.
    Really?? Detroiters would be improved if they moved to Winnipeg? Well, why haven't these Canadian programs improved Canadian aboriginals? What stops Canadian aboriginals moving into Winnipeg to see their conditions improve dramatically if this was the case? There are no borders preventing Canadian aboriginals from moving into Winnipeg?

    Why is it so bad in Canadian aboriginal communities? The violent crime rates in Inuit Nunangat were nine times higher than the rates in the rest of Canada. The rates of sexual assault and common assault were 12 times higher. The non-violent crime rates were six times higher in Inuit Nunangat. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...artie1-eng.htm

    Perhaps, the problem with Detroiters is the same as with Canadian aboriginal communities, which would suggest there wouldn't be a dramatic change with Detroiters if 500,000 Detroiters shifted to Winnipeg.

    The Aboriginal populations of Canada have several characteristics that have been associated with crime: high proportions of youth, people with limited education, unemployed, low-income households, single-parent families, and crowded dwellings (Brzozowski et al. 2006; Gionet 2009; Perreault 2009). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...artie1-eng.htm


    Doesn't that sound a lot like the problems with Detroit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    If you shifted 500,000 Winnipeg residents to Detroit they would be apoplectic at the state of things, and shut the State down with a massive general strike and block every highway and runway until the State of Michigan capitulated and fixed things.
    What stops a massive strike with that many people devolving into a outright riot, like the 1967 riot? What kind of change did that bring to the city? It made things worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    Of course, that's grossly over simplified.

    But its roughly true.

    You seem to assume Detroit's problems are its residents.

    I might suggest to you the problems with some residents are the result of Detroit, not the other way around.

    By which I mean, people adapt to their circumstances.

    Crappy transit, no healthcare, abandoned buildings, high crime, poor response by emergency services, mediocre public schools produce a result.

    Fix those things, get a better result.
    This was all the result of the mass exodus of taxpayers that left over the 1967 riots. Detroit didn't have these problems of "crappy transit, no healthcare, abandoned buildings, high crime, poor response by emergency services, mediocre public schools" before the riots. It used to be one of the richest metropolitans in the US prior to the 1967 riots.

    The problems with Detroit are the result of the cultural factors of its residents. Just fixing healthcare, public transit, emergency services, and public schools alone won't make it improve Detroit just like throwing money alone at Canadian aboriginal communities won't improve Canadian aboriginal communities.

    Fixing Detroit starts with jobs and a work ethic, not a culture of handouts.

  23. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davewindsor View Post
    Really?? Detroiters would be improved if they moved to Winnipeg? Well, why haven't these Canadian programs improved Canadian aboriginals?
    I'm not going to go very far down this road with you, as you seem motivated by racism, betrayal of your country and love of trashy journalism and worse presidents.

    That said, if you paid attention to world at all, and read credible information now and again, you would know many first nations Canadian do live on reserve and many who have moved (and many who haven't) have managed to better themselves.

    Yes, there are many reserves with a multitude of poor conditions for a host of reasons......separate topic all together.

    I didn't raise the rather ridiculous idea of transplanting Detroiters to Winnipeg or other way around.

    I answered it, accurately.

    Detroiters have no 'right' to move to Winnipeg, that's one reason among many this scenario is nonsense.

    But if they did, legally, then what I said applies.

    As it does to First Nations folks too.

    Why don't people get up and move en masse?

    Legal niceties aside (in Canada you lose certain rights/privileges off-reserve)

    There's the small matter of money.....flying from a remote northern community to Winnipeg costs alot, as does getting settled when you arrive. It means you need money to start with to make that work.

    It also helps if you have some family/friends, in the desired locale, as opposed to going it on your own....

    But enough of that.

    You don't like Canada, you don't like me, you don't like people with 3-digit IQs and you're not keen on non-whites.

    Got it.

    Done here.

  24. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor View Post
    I'm not going to go very far down this road with you, as you seem motivated by racism, betrayal of your country and love of trashy journalism and worse presidents.

    That said, if you paid attention to world at all, and read credible information now and again, you would know many first nations Canadian do live on reserve and many who have moved (and many who haven't) have managed to better themselves.

    Yes, there are many reserves with a multitude of poor conditions for a host of reasons......separate topic all together.

    I didn't raise the rather ridiculous idea of transplanting Detroiters to Winnipeg or other way around.

    I answered it, accurately.

    Detroiters have no 'right' to move to Winnipeg, that's one reason among many this scenario is nonsense.

    But if they did, legally, then what I said applies.

    As it does to First Nations folks too.

    Why don't people get up and move en masse?

    Legal niceties aside (in Canada you lose certain rights/privileges off-reserve)

    There's the small matter of money.....flying from a remote northern community to Winnipeg costs alot, as does getting settled when you arrive. It means you need money to start with to make that work.

    It also helps if you have some family/friends, in the desired locale, as opposed to going it on your own....

    But enough of that.

    You don't like Canada, you don't like me, you don't like people with 3-digit IQs and you're not keen on non-whites.

    Got it.

    Done here.
    I find it highly offensive that you would call me a racist to end an argument you lost long ago when I have said nothing racist to you. There is something seriously wrong with your head.

    Because I'm not a left wing socialist that agrees with your politics, I'm betraying my country?? To talk to someone as ignorant as you sounds like I'm talking to someone with a single digit IQ, not someone with "3-digit IQ"s like I normally talk to on here.

  25. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davewindsor View Post
    I find it highly offensive that you would call me a racist to end an argument you lost long ago when I have said nothing racist to you.
    You most certainly did.

    First, you interjected yourself in an exchange between myself and another poster, in which you did not belong.

    You did so to defend his clearly racist assertion that black Detroiters are inferior.

    He said so by implication 'third world problems' (not a reference to white folks) and he implied that those people were beyond hope, the whole point of his move them to Winnipeg reference.

    But you were right there to defend that idea that I was repudiating as any decent, ethical person would.

    Second, you then took that further by implying that Canada's first nations people are equally inferior in a manner similar to Detroit's non-white people.

    That's what you did, that's what you said, that's what everyone read.

    You got called on it, as you rightly should.

    Has nothing to do w/conservatism or liberalism or socialism or any other ism than the racism involved.

    It speaks terribly of you.

    Its not the first time, it won't be the last.

    When the moment comes to stand up and be counted as an ethical, decent human being, you are nowhere to be found.

    Because I'm not a left wing socialist that agrees with your politics, I'm betraying my country??
    So we're clear, I'm not only not socialist; I'm happily well off and surely pay way more tax than you.

    One of us can afford to live in Toronto, and its not you.

    That doesn't make me better, I'm better because I'm not racist and ignorant; not because I have money.

    But because I have money, I'm no more keen than you to see it wasted and likely far more opposed to deficit spending than you.

    I'm calling you out not because of your politics, but because you lack both a conscience and an intellect.
    Last edited by Canadian Visitor; November-22-19 at 10:51 PM.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Instagram
BEST ONLINE FORUM FOR
DETROIT-BASED DISCUSSION
DetroitYES Awarded BEST OF DETROIT 2015 - Detroit MetroTimes - Best Online Forum for Detroit-based Discussion 2015

ENJOY DETROITYES?


AND HAVE ADS REMOVED DETAILS »





Welcome to DetroitYES! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
DetroitYES! is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to DetroitYES! [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.